TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 985
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the 1st respondent will be referred to as accused and complainant, respectively. 3.The complainant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and was into the business of commodity trading. The accused was their customer and had traded in commodities, towards which, a sum of Rs. 5,54,580.53 was due to the complainant as on 23.05.2011. When the complainant started demanding the payment of the amount, the accused issued a post dated cheque for Rs. 5,40,000/- on 25.01.2012 (Ex.P2). The complainant presented the said cheque and it was returned with the endorsement "funds insufficient" on 31.01.2012 vide return memo (Ex.P3). The complainant issued a statutory demand notice dated 17.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Revision Case, before this Court, under Section 397 (1) r/w. 401 Cr.P.C. 9.Heard Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and Mrs.V.Suguna, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant. 10.It is trite that while exercising revisional jurisdiction in a case involving concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts below, the High Court cannot act as a second appellate Court [See State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others, etc. (2004) 7 SCC 659]. Very recently, in Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 197], the Supreme Court has held as under: "17.As held by this Court in Southern Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH [Southern Sales &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll aware of the transactions in question. He subjected himself to grilling cross-examination by the accused and has given satisfactory answers to the questions, which clearly shows that he was in know of the transactions in question. 13.That apart, the accused has not denied the issuance of the impugned cheque. This Court perused the original cheque (Ex.P2) and did not find any suspicion on the face of it. Superadded, the accused also did not give any satisfactory explanation when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 14.In Bir Singh v. Mukes Kumar [(2019) 4 SCC 197], the Supreme Court has held as follows : ''33.A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umption of consideration, the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability. 21. There is the mandate of presumption of consideration in terms of the provisions of the Act. The onus shifts to the accused on proof of issuance of cheque to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for discharge of any debt or liability in terms of Section 138 of the Act ... ...'' 16.Though the accused can discharge the burden under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by preponderance of probability, as held by the Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan [2010 (4) CTC 118], even that has not been done in this case. 17.In fine, this Criminal Revision C....